BMD-4/4M have 100mm gun. Isn't enough for light tanks?
For direct fire support, yes it would be an adequate replacement for 125mm HE Frag shells, and in terms of anti armour gun tube launched missiles it has comparable range to the 125mm missiles, if lacking in penetration due to its smaller calibre, but in the anti armour role the 100mm rifled gun has no HEAT or APFSDS rounds at all.
If the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and BMD-4/4M could replace the 125mm gun then there would be no need for Sprut at all.
The 100mm 2A70 gun is a low pressure rifled gun with a large shell weight and a relatively small propellent case.
The 125mm guns being used in Sprut have propellent stubs bigger in area than the shell being fired and operate at much higher pressures and much higher muzzle velocities.
And 2s9 Nona 120mm gun as a self-propelled mortar?
In many ways the 100mm gun is more like the 120mm mortar than the 125mm tank gun. Low velocity and plunging fire.
The 120mm gun/mortar system on a vehicle is older than the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3.
The 120mm gun/mortar was developed for the VDV because of its powerful projectile and its steep trajectory made it very effective against targets in mountains or behind cover.
The 100mm rifled 2A70 was pretty much developed as a replacement for the 73mm gun of the BMP-1.
It was found that rather than replacing the BMP-1, the BMP-2 which has a 30mm cannon actually complimented the 73mm gun of the BMP-1.
The BMP-1 got a 73mm gun because of the requirement that it had to be able to kill tanks. The AT-3 ATGM that was used on the BMP-1 had a dead space of about 300m where the guidance system was gathering the missile and it couldn't hit a target within that range. When testing weapons for the BMP-1 they tested all sorts of gun arrangements including 23mm and 30mm cannon, but to fill that dead space of 300m they needed a gun that could penetrate a MBTs armour. At the time the main US MBT was the M60 so a 73mm low pressure gun firing a projectile that looked a lot like the rocket from an SPG-9 recoilless rifle... or an RPG-7 rocket but with a much thicker body, was selected.
When the BMP-2 was being developed the much better AT4 and AT5 ATGMs with minimum ranges as small as 50m were to be used so the requirement to be able to kill tanks with the main gun was dropped so they went with a 30mm cannon.
The BMP-1s eventually got updated with a unified launcher that would fire either AT-4 or AT-5 missiles that was the same as that fitted to the BMP-2, but they kept the 73mm gun, which now had a HE Frag round in addition to the main HEAT rocket.
The reason was that the variety of targets on the battlefield meant that having a 30mm cannon was very useful on the BMP-2s, but having a much heavier HE round with the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 was also found to be useful too.
The result was that the BMP-3 has a 30mm cannon AND a direct fire HE capacity in the 100mm rifled gun too.
Current plans seem to be that the 122mm artillery is to be withdrawn in the self propelled versions and replaced directly with 120mm gun/mortars with the new weapons being fitted to 2S1 self propelled howitzers.
How this effects the armament of the BMP and BMD remains to be seen.
With improved C4IR the Russian artillery will become rather more responsive to armoured units demands and with guided shells it should be much more accurate meaning forward deployed HE power might not be so critical.
BMP and BMD equivalent vehicles might lose their 30mm and 100mm guns and have them replaced by new 57mm or 45mm guns that are being developed and tested.
The armament of the BMP/BMD went to 30mm cannons as an efficient weapon for taking on enemy equivalent IFVs, but increases in armour mean that while the 30mm is still useful in the anti aircraft role and against soft targets it lacks power against enemy IFVs.
A modern 45mm or upgraded 57mm gun should enable it to take on most enemy IFV and light tanks or MBTs from the side and rear, and with laser guided shells engage aircraft effectively too.
The question is do you keep the 30mm and 100mm which are still good for many purposes, including armament of BTR-82A and likely Typhoon lighter vehicles, or drop them and replace all 30mm guns with 45mm or 57mm.
This applies to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Laser guided 57mm shells would be useful on a new CAS aircraft being developed as a cheap truck killer, and of course laser guided 57mm shells reaching out to 6km or more would destroy anti ship missiles at much longer ranges on ships... the guided shells compensating for the lower rate of fire compared with 30mm guns. A 57mm gun turret could be made more stealthy than a 30mm cannon turret with back up missiles.
Kurganets is 25tn. I think as you said it will adopted by Navy. If they are going to modify it for DVD then why not to continue Sprut production?
The Navy is going to develop its own modification of Kurganets-25. The standard Army model of Kurganets-25 will be designed to be amphibious but the Army just want to cross rivers and streams and the odd lake in their vehicles. The Navy want to come ashore, perhaps in fairly rough seas, so they will get a custom designed Kurganets-25 with proper propellers and redesigned to operate in rough water and waves.
The Kurganets-25 will be heavier and better armoured than Sprut... the question is... can you drop it by parachute safely as it is rather heavier than the Sprut.
If they can drop it safely, then it makes sense to make a Sprut version of the Kurganets-25 because the Army and Navy will also be using this chassis in one form or another.
The current Sprut is based on the BMD-3, of which there are very few vehicles in service and the replacement BMD-4 has already been developed.
Building a few more now to meet their needs is OK, but the Kurganets-25 is supposed to be revealed next year and will likely go into production by 2015.
Most importantly the Kurganets-25 is not a BMP-5 it is a full family vehicle. They have developed and weapon and sensor and electronic suite for their new vehicles so there will be a tank suite, and an IFV/APC suite, and an artillery suite, and an air defence vehicle suite.
The Tank suite of sensors and weapons will be applied to the Armata in the heavy brigades and the Boomerang (wheeled) and Kurganets-25 (tracked) in the medium brigades and the Typhoon in the light brigades.
It is not set in stone that all these tanks will have the same 125mm gun... it is possible that the Typhoon might have a 57mm main gun that in the heavy and medium brigades is carried by the IFV, and it might carry Kornet-Em missiles to compensate, but there will be an Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and Typhoon IFV with a set of weapons and electronics and sensors to suit that role too.
In the case of artillery the Armata vehicle might be a single barrel version of Coalition with a 152mm gun, but in the medium and light brigades the 152mm gun might just be too big, so they might have 120mm gun/mortars, and Tornado rocket launchers with one pallet of launch tubes instead of the larger vehicle in the Armata brigade with two pallets.
The Air Defence vehicles will likely be TOR and Pantsir-S1 because traditionally Russian brigades have had vehicles with missiles and vehicles with missiles and guns (ie SA-13 and Tunguska).
It is possible that instead of TOR they have a brand new Laser beam riding missile to operate with Pantsir-S1, which would actually make the Brigades much better defended especially with all the vehicles carrying Kornet-EM missiles too.
I think what will happen is that Sprut will either be replaced by a Kurganets-25 tank variant, or if it is too heavy to be paradropped that the tank variant of the Typhoon will be modified as the replacement.
The idea will continue, but the BMD-3 chassis of the Sprut will become more of a problem.
By making the future Sprut based on a Kurganets-25 or Typhoon it means plenty of spare parts and trained engineers able to work on them and as the Army and Navy upgrade their vehicles the VDV can also benefit from those upgrades and improvements... in electronics, ammo, armour, and engines etc.